The need for a change in Canada's sex work laws

[TGirl Nikki]

There's very little I can reveal publicly at this time, but I can say a few things:

- This case is definitely going to the Supreme Court, no question about it. The five OCA justices who heard the appeal are currently writing their decision (I'm not sure who's the lead author in this one) and will probably provide one or two days' notice before they make their decison public. Cases of this magnitude do not move quickly, and it's customary for these decisions to take up to a year to write. We expect news sometime in late spring/early summer.

- Justice Himel took nearly a year to write her decision, because she recognized the need to be as detailed and careful as possible. We expect the same degree of thoroughness from the OCA, and they will have to consider and address every detail that Justice Himel took note of in her decision. For the legally-inclined who haven't read it, you can view the entirety of the decision here.

- Yes, the laws, as they currently stand, might be a bit better for clients than a licensed or regulated system would allow, and I personally think that licensing would cause rates to rise (especially in Toronto, since Mayor Shit-For-Brains would probably see it as a huge windfall for the city, without considering the major implications of making licenses too expensive for independent workers to afford). Well, too bad. When was the last time a client was assaulted or murdered by a sex worker? We assume the vast majority of the risk involved, be it legal risk, or risk to our safety. These laws just increase our risk, and they are coming down, like it or not.

- Clients are already criminalized under the S.213(c), and can still be charged under the Communicating Law. Additionally, clients can be listed as a "found-in" if the police raid a suspected bawdy house while you're there. So quit pretending like the Swedish approach (please don't call it a "model" for anything) is such a huge departure from what we're already dealing with, and the one thing I can share publicly is that there is currently no appetite for this in the House of Commons. They had a chance to propose the Swedish approach back in September and elected not to do so - Joy Smith backed down after the CPC higher-ups told her not to bring this legislation to the table.

- For the legally-savvy, we should note that the laws are essentially held in abeyance right now. Even though they remain on the books, and police are still targeting street-based sex workers and their clients, there are very few police units interested in going after incall workers. Even if charges are laid, there's no way any trial judge will proceed with a trial when the laws are currently subject to a consitutional challenge, being evaluated by a higher court. Anyone charged can simply request to stay the proceedings until the SCC has ruled, and it's hard to imagine any Crown Attorney proceeding with charges when they're certain to be appealed or dismissed once the SCC has ruled. So, the laws don't have any real teeth right now; you can still be charged but I can't possibly see any chance of conviction.

- None of the 308 MPs or 105 Senators who will eventually decide what Canada's sex work laws will look like gives a rat's ass what TERB thinks about the situation. Conversely, none of the however-many TERB members who actually engage in pay-for-play give a rat's ass what politicians think of the hobby. Play smart, play safe, and play nice, and you won't have a problem. Try to take liberties with the hobby because of its dubious legal nature, however, and you will have a problem - sex workers are a lot better organized than most people realize.

 

[Anynym]

Now that is a silly negative comment! Of course laws were challenged, but they were the laws related to certain activities often associated with prostitution. As I said, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada.
Perhaps you should take more time to reflect before you post

Once again you're a bit too quick to type.

That prostitution itself is legal was never in question.

The question before the courts is whether there is a possibility to engage in a legal activity (prostitution) without running afoul of these aspects of the law, and the answer - as has been pointed out countless times on this board and elsewhere - is a resounding YES.

That doesn't mean that others should be allowed to engage in the legal activity in whatever means they choose, without legal consequence.

Let me try to simplify it for you with an example. Let's say someone wants to run a legal business, say, small engine maintenance. Should they be allowed to dump used oil down the drain just because small engine maintenance is a legal activity? To locate their business in a residential area? To locate their business in an environmentally sensitive area? There are severe legal consequences to engaging in that lawful business in certain ways and in certain places. So it is with many, many businesses: just because it's legal doesn't mean there aren't criminal sanctions to performing it in certain manners or locations.

 

[good to go]

You could build a subway line with all of the tax money that would be generated by this ruling.

 

[neverwas]

Once again you're a bit too quick to type.

That prostitution itself is legal was never in question.

The question before the courts is whether there is a possibility to engage in a legal activity (prostitution) without running afoul of these aspects of the law, and the answer - as has been pointed out countless times on this board and elsewhere - is a resounding YES.

That doesn't mean that others should be allowed to engage in the legal activity in whatever means they choose, without legal consequence.

Let me try to simplify it for you with an example. Let's say someone wants to run a legal business, say, small engine maintenance. Should they be allowed to dump used oil down the drain just because small engine maintenance is a legal activity? To locate their business in a residential area? To locate their business in an environmentally sensitive area? There are severe legal consequences to engaging in that lawful business in certain ways and in certain places. So it is with many, many businesses: just because it's legal doesn't mean there aren't criminal sanctions to performing it in certain manners or locations.

I fail to see how such obvious comments relate to your previous post. Maybe you could "simplify" it by indicating exactly what you were disagreeing with in my initial post. Your sarcasm in your first post really accomplished nothing except encourage a similarly sarcastic response.

 

[Scott75]

While it is "not unknown" for the courts to consider community values in their decisions, they are only allowed to in certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

I think it's safe to say that if the vast majority of people in Canada wanted to change the laws regarding prostitution, it would happen, whether by the courts or by legislation.

Scott posting fairly inarticulate posts on internet boards will not influence the court of appeal panel.

I happen to think that my posts are fairly articulate, thank you very much -.-

They have already heard/read multiple written submissions that include all the best data and science on the issue. A guess after reading all that they will go "oh gee I never thought of that" when they see his OP. Right.

From the outset, I was dubious that the actual court might be swayed by articles on this subject (I'm clearly not the only person who has written them, I quoted a few as well). That being said, I do think that articles of this nature can sway the court of public opinion. Essentially, I think that regardless of which way the court decides this time around, it won't be the end of the story. I just think it's a good starting point; it lets people see where we are, and from there, we can try to persuade them that the laws need to be changed.

I don't think the Tories will leave this issue alone for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is a NIMBY issue. Secondly it is a chance to throw a bone to their far right supporters with almost no downside.

Oh, I agree. But the Tories are a political party, which is the very area I'm trying to affect; the political arena. Even if the Tories refuse to change their current stance, the Tories can be defeated at the polls. The bottom line here is that it's the will of the people who elects the politicians and they, in turn, elect the members of the Supreme Court.

 

[Scott75]

While you have the slogans down, I have lobbied at the federal and provincial level for years.

Cool.

Discussions on internet chat boards, have no impact on policy making.

If it stays at the level of the internet chat boards, I'd agree. But I'm only using this as a starting point.

Internet petitions have no impact on policy making.

I think if you get enough signatures, it might well make a difference, but to be honest with you, I've never done an internet petition. I'm generally far more interested in engaging people who disagree with what I have to say, in the hopes of persuading them to see things differently.

Real petitions with real signatures are the first place they start paying attention.

I might take part in something of that nature at some point in time. However, as I said, right now I'm just starting out. At some point in time, I may feel that it would be good to do this.

And the reason we have a conservative government in power is because they won the majority of the seats with the largest number of votes.

I was once going to vote for the reform party, back when it hadn't joined up with the conservatives (I never made it to the polls). People change. And I think the reason for this is that new ideas enter their consciousness. Let me put it to you this way; there was a time when I thought that porn was bad. I'd been taught to think that this was true. Due to learning more since then, my views have changed. Here's some lyrics from a song (transfiguration) that I think get to what I'm trying to get at:
"When the devil appeared, I locked him in a box
Sure if it opened, that he would eat me up
Oh, how I feared at what my fate might be
I couldn't see, locked in that box, that love held the key"

From a research paper I quoted from in the OP of this thread:
"A system that recognizes the emotional consumption that is integral to some forms of commercial sex and the possibilities for emotional mutuality between sex worker and client could be a framework that distils negative images of women as disposable victims and clients as unruly sexual beasts to be controlled."

I think they're talking about the same subject, albeit in different ways. We each have the power to influence a part of the system because we're all part of the system.

 

[Scott75]

There's very little I can reveal publicly at this time, but I can say a few things:

- This case is definitely going to the Supreme Court, no question about it. The five OCA justices who heard the appeal are currently writing their decision (I'm not sure who's the lead author in this one) and will probably provide one or two days' notice before they make their decison public. Cases of this magnitude do not move quickly, and it's customary for these decisions to take up to a year to write. We expect news sometime in late spring/early summer.

- Justice Himel took nearly a year to write her decision, because she recognized the need to be as detailed and careful as possible. We expect the same degree of thoroughness from the OCA, and they will have to consider and address every detail that Justice Himel took note of in her decision. For the legally-inclined who haven't read it, you can view the entirety of the decision here.

- Yes, the laws, as they currently stand, might be a bit better for clients than a licensed or regulated system would allow, and I personally think that licensing would cause rates to rise (especially in Toronto, since Mayor Shit-For-Brains would probably see it as a huge windfall for the city, without considering the major implications of making licenses too expensive for independent workers to afford). Well, too bad. When was the last time a client was assaulted or murdered by a sex worker? We assume the vast majority of the risk involved, be it legal risk, or risk to our safety. These laws just increase our risk, and they are coming down, like it or not.

- Clients are already criminalized under the S.213(c), and can still be charged under the Communicating Law. Additionally, clients can be listed as a "found-in" if the police raid a suspected bawdy house while you're there. So quit pretending like the Swedish approach (please don't call it a "model" for anything) is such a huge departure from what we're already dealing with, and the one thing I can share publicly is that there is currently no appetite for this in the House of Commons. They had a chance to propose the Swedish approach back in September and elected not to do so - Joy Smith backed down after the CPC higher-ups told her not to bring this legislation to the table.

- For the legally-savvy, we should note that the laws are essentially held in abeyance right now. Even though they remain on the books, and police are still targeting street-based sex workers and their clients, there are very few police units interested in going after incall workers. Even if charges are laid, there's no way any trial judge will proceed with a trial when the laws are currently subject to a consitutional challenge, being evaluated by a higher court. Anyone charged can simply request to stay the proceedings until the SCC has ruled, and it's hard to imagine any Crown Attorney proceeding with charges when they're certain to be appealed or dismissed once the SCC has ruled. So, the laws don't have any real teeth right now; you can still be charged but I can't possibly see any chance of conviction.

- None of the 308 MPs or 105 Senators who will eventually decide what Canada's sex work laws will look like gives a rat's ass what TERB thinks about the situation. Conversely, none of the however-many TERB members who actually engage in pay-for-play give a rat's ass what politicians think of the hobby. Play smart, play safe, and play nice, and you won't have a problem. Try to take liberties with the hobby because of its dubious legal nature, however, and you will have a problem - sex workers are a lot better organized than most people realize.

Good post Nikki. As to what politicians think of TERB thinks, you may well be right, but members of this forum are also members of other groups, and not all of those groups are seen the same way. Ultimately though, my main focus isn't politicians or even the courts, it's individuals who show an interest in the subject. I think that starting out here made sense; I think I'd be hard pressed to find a forum where there's more interest in the subject . I have now gotten some responses in other forums regarding this issue; again, just a few, but I think it's worth mentioning. Here's one such thread:
http://www.generalforum.com/divisive-issues/need-change-countries-sex-work-laws-93674.html

The person I'm arguing with seems to see things a bit from the other side of the debate, although his view isn't set in stone. I think it's clear that he hasn't really looked into the issue too deeply; I just checked out the conclusion of the research paper he just brought up, it actually seems to be more in favour of legalization then against it.

 

[Scott75]

You could build a subway line with all of the tax money that would be generated by this ruling.

And save a ton of tax money in less law enforcement stings, arrests, incarcerations and court time. A win win situation for sure

 

[rld]

And save a ton of tax money in less law enforcement stings, arrests, incarcerations and court time. A win win situation for sure

How much money do we spend on these things?

 

[rld]

I think they're talking about the same subject, albeit in different ways. We each have the power to influence a part of the system because we're all part of the system.

We each have power to influence the system if we know how to do so and do it properly.

Your suggestion that these internet discussions might impact the C of A panel...not so much.

 

[MattRoxx]

There's very little I can reveal publicly at this time, but I can say a few things:

- This case is definitely going to the Supreme Court, no question about it. The five OCA justices who heard the appeal are currently writing their decision (I'm not sure who's the lead author in this one) and will probably provide one or two days' notice before they make their decison public. Cases of this magnitude do not move quickly, and it's customary for these decisions to take up to a year to write. We expect news sometime in late spring/early summer.

- Justice Himel took nearly a year to write her decision, because she recognized the need to be as detailed and careful as possible. We expect the same degree of thoroughness from the OCA, and they will have to consider and address every detail that Justice Himel took note of in her decision. For the legally-inclined who haven't read it, you can view the entirety of the decision here.

- Yes, the laws, as they currently stand, might be a bit better for clients than a licensed or regulated system would allow, and I personally think that licensing would cause rates to rise (especially in Toronto, since Mayor Shit-For-Brains would probably see it as a huge windfall for the city, without considering the major implications of making licenses too expensive for independent workers to afford). Well, too bad. When was the last time a client was assaulted or murdered by a sex worker? We assume the vast majority of the risk involved, be it legal risk, or risk to our safety. These laws just increase our risk, and they are coming down, like it or not.

- Clients are already criminalized under the S.213(c), and can still be charged under the Communicating Law. Additionally, clients can be listed as a "found-in" if the police raid a suspected bawdy house while you're there. So quit pretending like the Swedish approach (please don't call it a "model" for anything) is such a huge departure from what we're already dealing with, and the one thing I can share publicly is that there is currently no appetite for this in the House of Commons. They had a chance to propose the Swedish approach back in September and elected not to do so - Joy Smith backed down after the CPC higher-ups told her not to bring this legislation to the table.

- For the legally-savvy, we should note that the laws are essentially held in abeyance right now. Even though they remain on the books, and police are still targeting street-based sex workers and their clients, there are very few police units interested in going after incall workers. Even if charges are laid, there's no way any trial judge will proceed with a trial when the laws are currently subject to a consitutional challenge, being evaluated by a higher court. Anyone charged can simply request to stay the proceedings until the SCC has ruled, and it's hard to imagine any Crown Attorney proceeding with charges when they're certain to be appealed or dismissed once the SCC has ruled. So, the laws don't have any real teeth right now; you can still be charged but I can't possibly see any chance of conviction.

- None of the 308 MPs or 105 Senators who will eventually decide what Canada's sex work laws will look like gives a rat's ass what TERB thinks about the situation. Conversely, none of the however-many TERB members who actually engage in pay-for-play give a rat's ass what politicians think of the hobby. Play smart, play safe, and play nice, and you won't have a problem. Try to take liberties with the hobby because of its dubious legal nature, however, and you will have a problem - sex workers are a lot better organized than most people realize.

Great post thanks for providing some solid intel on this matter.

Oh, I agree. But the Tories are a political party, which is the very area I'm trying to affect; the political arena. Even if the Tories refuse to change their current stance, the Tories can be defeated at the polls. The bottom line here is that it's the will of the people who elects the politicians and they, in turn, elect the members of the Supreme Court.

Yes. Changing the laws re: gay marriage took a lot of advocacy, public interest and finally (Liberal) progressive political will

Again, the Conservatives are very inconsistent. For instance they want to get rid of the long gun registry because apparently keeping track of these dangerous weapons is not something the gov't should be involved in.
OTOH they insist that the gov't must be intimately involved in and keep track of sexual relationships between consenting adults, a victimless and voluntary activity where no one gets hurt (unless the client pays extra ).

One problem seems to be that it's easier to enact laws against an activity "for the good of society" or "think of the children!" than to remove laws already in place, which requires some kind of proof that removing the law won't cause the downfall of civilization.
Another problem is that once power is held by an entity (ie by police) it is very difficult to convince them to give up that power and they will come up with all kinds of reasons why the need to hold on to that power.

 

[Scott75]

How much money do we spend on these things?

I spent some time googling just now trying to find out; couldn't find anything. I hope that those arguing for the repeal of the prostitution laws know this information, I think it'd be useful for any future court cases on the issue.

 

[Scott75]

I think they're talking about the same subject, albeit in different ways. We each have the power to influence a part of the system because we're all part of the system.

We each have power to influence the system if we know how to do so and do it properly.

Aye.

Your suggestion that these internet discussions might impact the C of A panel...not so much.

So you've told me more then once -.- By the way, from things you've said regarding Bedford vs. Canada, not to mention what someone told me through a PM, I've been thinking, are you a lawyer?

 

[Scott75]

Oh, I agree. But the Tories are a political party, which is the very area I'm trying to affect; the political arena. Even if the Tories refuse to change their current stance, the Tories can be defeated at the polls. The bottom line here is that it's the will of the people who elects the politicians and they, in turn, elect the members of the Supreme Court.

Yes. Changing the laws re: gay marriage took a lot of advocacy, public interest and finally (Liberal) progressive political will

Again, the Conservatives are very inconsistent. For instance they want to get rid of the long gun registry because apparently keeping track of these dangerous weapons is not something the gov't should be involved in.
OTOH they insist that the gov't must be intimately involved in and keep track of sexual relationships between consenting adults, a victimless and voluntary activity where no one gets hurt (unless the client pays extra ).

One problem seems to be that it's easier to enact laws against an activity "for the good of society" or "think of the children!" than to remove laws already in place, which requires some kind of proof that removing the law won't cause the downfall of civilization.
Another problem is that once power is held by an entity (ie by police) it is very difficult to convince them to give up that power and they will come up with all kinds of reasons why the need to hold on to that power.

I'm not concerned about the police; they'll do what their political masters tell them to do. And in the end, the same goes for the politicians. In the end, it comes down to our fellow citizens. Which is why I've been trying to persuade people that legalizing prostitution is the right choice. Ultimately, I find that this is an issue where the status quo is generally maintained not be fiery rhetoric but by everyone turning a blind eye. Nevertheless, Himmel's decision is forcing the government to display its cruelty, not by design, but by result. Perhaps some of the saddest statements it came up with is illuminated in an article I found titled Harper governments denies obligation to protect sex workers

Here's the paragraph I found most damning:

The argument that sex work is dangerous can be true, but that doesn't negate the fact that the government's laws are purposely making it more dangerous" explained Nadia, a Toronto-based sex worker. "The laws currently in place, until the ruling from the Supreme Court, do not allow us to protect ourselves, and if we were to try to protect ourselves, we would run into problems with the police. We can't win," Nadia continued. She finished off by arguing that "the legal brief attacks sex-workers wrongly as opposed to addressing the issues they face. Yes, some workers can be affiliated with drugs, gangs and violence, but so can the wealthy. Also, by creating such stigma around workers, any chance of regulating negative impacts goes out the window.

I've been debating whether the sex work laws should be repealed in another forum as well; so far, only one person is responding. However, the person is a moderator on the board and he's also simply taking the stance that he's not sure whether the laws should be changed or not; I'm doing my best to persuade him that they should be .

 

[Anynym]

I fail to see how such obvious comments relate to your previous post. Maybe you could "simplify" it by indicating exactly what you were disagreeing with in my initial post. Your sarcasm in your first post really accomplished nothing except encourage a similarly sarcastic response.

I started by offering the suggestion that many activities - such as theft - could present dangerous situations.

You claimed that because theft was illegal, and prostitution was legal, that they could not be compared.

But that completely ignored the question in this case: that some behaviours are in fact, illegal under the criminal code of Canada and have been challenged in court. The same facts apply to both ideas: some criminalized behavour presents a hazard and the courts are being asked to decriminalize the behaviour.

You again failed to grasp this, so I explained it yet again, this time by including examples of yet more legal industries where criminal sanctions are applied to certain behaviours associated with practices within that industry, again with the same conclusion: that the legal regime allows legal activities to be undertaken while not running afoul of the criminal code, and that suggestions that the sections of the criminal code need to be eliminated because some people choose to practice that legal industry in illegal ways should lead to many other sections of the criminal code being thrown out for the exact same reasons.

 

[rld]

Aye.



So you've told me more then once -.- By the way, from things you've said regarding Bedford vs. Canada, not to mention what someone told me through a PM, I've been thinking, are you a lawyer?

Yup. I is.

 

[rld]

I started by offering the suggestion that many activities - such as theft - could present dangerous situations.

You claimed that because theft was illegal, and prostitution was legal, that they could not be compared.

But that completely ignored the question in this case: that some behaviours are in fact, illegal under the criminal code of Canada and have been challenged in court. The same facts apply to both ideas: some criminalized behavour presents a hazard and the courts are being asked to decriminalize the behaviour.

You again failed to grasp this, so I explained it yet again, this time by including examples of yet more legal industries where criminal sanctions are applied to certain behaviours associated with practices within that industry, again with the same conclusion: that the legal regime allows legal activities to be undertaken while not running afoul of the criminal code, and that suggestions that the sections of the criminal code need to be eliminated because some people choose to practice that legal industry in illegal ways should lead to many other sections of the criminal code being thrown out for the exact same reasons.

The argument advanced at the court of appeal is that the restrictions in question are unconstitutional. All the rest is just gum-flapping.

 

[Scott75]

...from things you've said regarding Bedford vs. Canada, not to mention what someone told me through a PM, I've been thinking, are you a lawyer?

Yup. I is.

Laugh . Good to know.